4 ms·
No, you are lying. Signers "H": http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p342.htm http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p342.htm There are 452 PhDs on that page alone. Each
by 1gor 18y ago
No, you are lying.
Signers "H": http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p342.htm http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p342.htm
There are 452 PhDs on that page alone. Each of them actually risks something by signing the petition, so this is no joke.
- sethg 18y agoThe mere appearance of "PhD" next to a name doesn't impress me. Especially when there's no mention of where each of these learned doctors got their PhD from, what the subject matter of the PhD was, or what institutions the doctor is affiliated with now.
- 1gor 18y agoPhDs were not the point. Geri Halliwell was (or rather wasn't).
- Retric 18y agoPhD in what? Figure 1: Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile region of the Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975, So their first graph stops 33 years ago? Many of these estimates are from the decrease in atmospheric carbon 14 after cessation of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, which provides a reliable half-time. There is no experimental evidence to support computer model estimates (73) of a CO2 atmospheric "lifetime" of 300 years or more. The average exchange of carbon with biomass is has little change in the net levels of carbon but it does change what isotopes are in the atmosphere. PS: Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants. Based on what? Oxygen above the normal range has significant negative heath impacts. It also kills of wide ranges of the planets life forms.
- josefresco 18y agoI have no doubt once Geri's name was found (and made public) they removed it from the list as it was obviously fake or just plain wrong. My point was mostly humor, but my underlying point was that there is simply no verification as to the qualifications of any scientist, phd or spice girl on this list.
- 1gor 18y agoAd hominem ad nauseam... The signatures are results of a nation-wide mail survey first undertaken in 1998. The respondents were selected based on their scientific credentials of publicly accepted quality. All the signatures are done in writing and are available for inspection on your request at the institute. Since you've just attempted a mass character assassination, do you mind sharing the results of your inquest into the validity of the signatures/qualifications with us?
- Retric 18y agoargumentum ad verecundiam An appeal to authority or argument by authority also known as argument from authority. If you say 50 or 5 billion scientists provide wieght to your argument your already falling under a logical falicy. Responding with an Ad hominem ad nauseam seems reasonable when at least one person that made the list had zero credibility. PS: I see a lot of hand waving and use of vary specific data when more general studies have been done but I don't see any real theory. What model are they using to base their assumptions on and how well tested is it and or what specific flaws have they uncovered in existing research or thery?